SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Cal) 296

SUDHANSHU SEKHAR GANGULY, MONORANJAN MALLICK, MUKHERJEE
KRISHNA GOPAL GHOSAL – Appellant
Versus
MIHIR BARAN NANDY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.RAKSHIT, ABINASH CHANDRA BOSE, P.B.DAS, RATHINDRA NATH DAS

MOOKERJEE, CJ.

( 1 ) BY their order, dated the 10th August, 1984 of Anil Kumar Sen and S. R. Roy, JJ, this revision has been placed before the Special Bench for answering the question whether or not poverty would be a ground for condonation of delay in depositing monthly rent in terms of Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaintiff opposite parties have brought a suit for eviction of the defendant petitioner on the ground of their reasonable requirement for use and occupation of the suit premises. After entering appearance, the defendant had made an application under sub-section (2a) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. By his order, dated the 18th August, 1978, the learned Munsif determined a sum of Rs. 1750 as the total arrear rent due and the interest payable thereon and directed the defendant petitioner to pay or deposit the said amount by instalment of Rs. 350 per month. It is not very much disputed that the defendant tenant had fully complied with the said order for deposit bypassed by the court below in terms of Section 17 (2a) (b) of the said Act.

( 2 ) THE defendant tenant had been also depositing current rent in terms of second










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top